Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Thomas W. Bethel]

You really need to check out this software

http://www.izotope.com/products/audio/rx/

I was a BETA tester and I am super impressed with the software. They did it right.

The hum filtering and denoising filters alone are worth the total cost of the software and the frequency space editing is amazing. For $350 it is GREAT!

I would be interested in what others think. You can download a demo and try it.

[Luke Fellingham]

I tried the demo of this today. I've not used any real noise reduction/restoration software before so I don't really have anything to compare it to. Nonetheless it seemed easy to use and I was able to make quite dramatic improvements to noisey recordings quickly. I've been looking for something to do these tasks for a while but decent alternatives on the Mac seem to be really expensive. This looks like the right thing at the right price. Has anyone else used it and compared it to the alternatives?

[MASSIVE Mastering]

Thomas W. Bethel wrote on Mon, 08 October 2007 07:07

For $350 it is GREAT!

$199 through October...  I'll try it out.  

[Dave Davis]

It's really a very nice application... we have a voice talent who has these very odd clicks (clicks are common but not like these).  We've tried all sorts of things to get rid of them, from complex edits to declickers.  The only solution was to redraw with pencil.  Period.  RX Spectral Repair solved the problem: not only does it cleanly remove the clicks without artifacts, it makes them very obvious and easy to spot, so we're finding clicks that were masked by consonants and other "real" sounds.  This particular talent is exceptional (quick study, easy to direct, strong wind etc), so RX has been a lifesaver.

I'd call Spectral Repair a "poor mans" ReNOVAtor, but that would be selling it short, since it has so many other tools.  The batch tool and SRC are worth the price of admission (we still use Spark for the sound), but denoise and spectral repair are familiar and powerful tools that work as well or better than the competition.  The hum module is exceptionally powerful.  The declipper is interesting too, but I've not gotten a handle on it.

For careful restoration work, the application-based approach is fine, if a bit slow for the best quality (there's a huge range of quality here, and process times range from real time to silly-slow).  I can't wait for plug based versions for stuff like hum removal and a quick declick/declipping alternative to NoNoise.  Good stuff.

-d-

[MASSIVE Mastering]

Quote:

I can't wait for plug based versions for stuff like hum removal

The only thing I missed after selling my Waves license was X-Hum.  The best plug they ever made (IMO).  

[TotalSonic]

I've definitely been looking for better NR/restoration tools than I currently have - but I wonder how the Izotope RX compares to the Wave Arts Master Restoration suite- http://www.wavearts.com/MasterRestoration.html - which has the distinct advantage to me in terms of work flow that it is already available in plugin form.

Guess I have a bunch of demoing to do in the next week or so!

Best regards,
Steve Berson

[Dave Davis]

I think it depends on the material and task, Steve...

According to Izotope, many of the most sophisticated algorithms, esp the advanced settings in denoise and spectral repair, simply cannot work in plug-form at all.  There just isn't enough DSP in current processors for them to work in real time.  For reference: I'm running a very tweaky denoise process on some field recordings right now in RX on a Quad G5, 2.5gHz machine, and each 10 minute chunk takes about 30 minutes to complete.  This module has realtime settings, and those sound BETTER than Digi's BNR and DNR plugs out of the box, but the non-realtime versions are stunningly good.

For me the biggest issue is workflow, however, and while there are jobs like this that benefit from the extra DSP, most stuff is more mundane, so the eventual plug-based versions will make life a lot easier.  I've communicated with the developers about creating faster previews at lower quality, and I hope they give that some thought.  The real hang up in the current version is time between previews can be very long, so you forget what's what in between.  It's definitely still a 1.0!  But it seems stable, and does things others don't.

-d-

[Greg Youngman]

It seems that the "Declipper" module would be useful to fix about 98% of some mastering jobs I hear!

[Bob Boyd]

I agree this is a powerful and promising app.  The non-realtime NR can be quite impressive.  I need to spend some more time with the other aspects of RX.  

Two things I've communicated to them through the beta process are:

1. Implementation as a plug to be able to use it within existing sessions

2. I also think the user should be able to rebalance the noise estimate threshold (like NoNoise) or at least implement a filter section to act as a sidechain of sorts.  Or both.

So far, I'm still audibly favoring Saracon as an SRC but I think it was smart of them to include theirs making it a really flexible audio toolbox.

I looking forward to spending some time with it on clipped mixes and see what kind of results I can get.

[jdg]

just de-clicked some stuff, way better then anything i currently have

[turtletone]

why doesn't it support multi mono files?

[cerberus]

multi-mono (split stereo) support is anticipated for version 1.1.

izotope asked the testers if we had enough format support
for 1.0. i am sorry for not raising it. another tester did, but
not in time for this release.

rx 1.0 is not a full-on 2 track editor. and no matter how
inconvenient the lack of daw integration may seem,
the algorithms in rx were not previously available
anywhere.  in the advanced version, for example
the src's filter cutoff may be tweaked to
an extraordinarily fine degree. one may
split hairs with it if they wish. there is
a parameter for pre-ringing too.

as for the denoiser.  i was able to separate the drums from the bass...
then the client came up with the individual tracks... and it was
incredible how close rx came to that! taking out low level
broadband noise is child's play for the denoiser,
compared to what it can actually do. there
are no space monkeys, btw. the only
compromise one would need to
make is: processing time.

the declicker will act only on the samples actually containing the clicks.
the remainder of the signal will null with the source.

i have not been so impressed with the performance
a software app since melodyne.  

the declipper made the impossible
possible for me.  it was like a second
coming for some (unlucky, and then)
very lucky young band. nobody
will ever know how badly they
clipped their mixes.

jeff dinces

[carlsaff]

Really fantastic. For $199, a no-brainer.

I had a client in this past weekend with a project where the guitar in the left channel was crackling badly on several mixes. Tried a bunch of things and got it to a tolerable place... but it was still pretty obvious and he was pretty dejected. He hadn't noticed it as much on his monitors, but it was plain as day on mine (the clarifying high-mid EQ in place had a bit to do with that).

RX took care of this problem beautifully. Client is ecstatic, as am I.

[Alexey Lukin]

Dave Davis wrote on Wed, 10 October 2007 13:08

According to Izotope, many of the most sophisticated algorithms, esp the advanced settings in denoise and spectral repair, simply cannot work in plug-form at all. There just isn't enough DSP in current processors for them to work in real time.

These are slightly different issues. Some of effects that are slow (e.g. Denoiser in mode "C"), can still work as plug-ins, they'll just run slower than real time.

Dave Davis wrote on Wed, 10 October 2007 07:38

I'd call Spectral Repair a "poor mans" ReNOVAtor

To me, Spectral Repair looks more like the extension of Renovator. Spectral Repair's "Attenuate" mode does very similarly to Renovator, but it also has other modes of synthesis.

[Bob Boyd]

Alexey Lukin wrote on Sat, 13 October 2007 14:56

Dave Davis wrote on Wed, 10 October 2007 13:08  According to Izotope, many of the most sophisticated algorithms, esp the advanced settings in denoise and spectral repair, simply cannot work in plug-form at all. There just isn't enough DSP in current processors for them to work in real time. These are slightly different issues. Some of effects that are slow (e.g. Denoiser in mode "C"), can still work as plug-ins, they'll just run slower than real time.

True.  There's still a lot of benefit to be had from RX being implemented as a non-realtime plug (i.e. AudioSuite).

[Chriss]

Is there much of a difference in the noise removal of the rx and rx advanced versions?

[Dave Davis]

Of course there's a difference! Specifically: when you have access to more parameters, you can more flexibly and transparently eliminate different kinds of noise than you can with a smaller, more limited set of controls.  Think of it like EQ: A 4 band parametric can do much, much more than a 4 band graphic.  The difference is similar.

OTOH the regular version can be better if you don't understand the parameters available in the advanced version.  If you don't know what the controls mean/do, you're more likely to make a mess of things than you might with a simpler tool.

The bottom line here: the versions reflect different sorts of users, more than DSP.  Advanced users will recognize and use the extra parameters, casual users will not (or do damage with tools they don't fully understand).  I suggest trying both demo versions and see what feels best for you.  Advanced users hit the wall pretty quickly with the regular version, while regular users will be stumped by most of the controls on the advanced version.  If you see things you don't get, and you don't do this for a living, the regular version might be ideal.

-d-

[Bob Boyd]

I got spend a little time with the iZotope SRC included in RX last night.  When trying this SRC previously (who's code is included in several other apps), I had not been able to produce a converted file that wasn't a touch brighter than the source.  RX allows you to adjust the filters in the SRC and I was indeed able to yield a result closer to what I'm hearing with Weiss Saracon (my benchmark).

From what Matt Gray has mentioned, AudioFile Engineering is adding (or has already added) these filter adjustments to their apps as well.

I will continue to experiment with this but one thing is for sure - RX looks like it will be a great thing to have in the ol' toolbox.

[cerberus]

<edit: see what alex has said below>

jeff dinces

[Alexey Lukin]

Chriss wrote on Mon, 15 October 2007 12:04

Is there much of a difference in the noise removal of the rx and rx advanced versions?

No. You can use the same high-quality algorithms in the Simple version. However the Advanced version has more algorithm parameters exposed: Knee sharpness, Psychoacoustic suppr., Release time, Harmonic enhancement, FFT size, Algorithm of musical noise suppression, and Multi-resolution. The last 3 can be controlled by "Algorithm" presets (A/B/C) in a Simple version, while other controls are defaulted to some reasonable values in a Simple version.